Heironimus v. Brown

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Hon.
William T. Lawrence, Judge Distribution United States
District Court.

Petitioner
Jeffrey S. Heironimus is serving an 18-year sentence for a
separate conviction[1] and an 18-month sentence for his 2012
Vanderburgh County, Indiana, conviction for attempted
obstruction of justice, to be served consecutively. He brings
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, Mr.
Heironimus's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
denied and the action dismissed with
prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a
certificate of appealability should not issue.

I.
Factual and Procedural Background

District
court review of a habeas petition presumes all factual
findings of the state court to be correct, absent clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(e)(1); Daniels v. Knight, 476 F.3d 426,
434 (7th Cir. 2007). On appeal from post-conviction relief,
the Indiana Court of Appeals summarized the relevant facts
and procedural history:

In May 2011, Heironimus was charged with Class C felony
robbery for robbing a bank in Evansville. The State also
alleged that he was an habitual offender.[2] In January 2012,
the State also charged Heironimus with Class D felony
attempted obstruction of justice and again alleged that he
was an habitual offender. The State alleged that Heironimus
“knowingly sen[t] a letter to Bradford Talley, who was
a witness in [the robbery case], with the intent to induce
Bradford Talley, by threat or coercion, to withhold testimony
in that proceeding, which conduct constituted a substantial
step toward that commission of the said crime of Obstruction
of Justice ....“ Petitioner's Ex. D. The letter in
question was sent to Talley, who witnessed Heironimus fleeing
the bank after the robbery and who was a stranger to
Heironimus. It stated:

I hope to get your ear before the state does. The prosecutor
& cops are going to try & have you appear @ my trial
and point me out, to say you saw me in a red truck. Using
this testimony they are trying to prove I was the guy who
robbed a bank! They are trying to give me as much as 50 yrs!
Crazy dude! Anyway, I didn't do this-the guy driving the
red truck, it was his bank; his house where the money was
found the next day, they caught him and his wife spending the
money while I was in jail (because he lied & said I did
it). He set me up & they are going for it-he's a
thief, liar and rat! He is out of jail now. I don't know
how you see this, but I do hope you are not a rat working
with the police on a lie in case like this is B.S.! If they
find you they can force you to court-cause their the Nazi
pigs, they can not force you to say you ever saw me nor can
they make you point me out in court.

Just remember things are always as it appears, right. Please
don't let them take my life-not by your helping cool?
P.S. Watch your back out there. P.S.S. Probably lookin'
for ya-over

The Accused!

They're trying to get you to point me out 1st in a
line-up-you don't remember right. They are looking to
find you & force you to court on Nov. 14th 2011 just to
point me out in court & say you saw me in a red truck.
You're not sure, right. Simply put, dude, you just
can't remember or be sure! Ok? This is my life-in your
hands. I've met a couple people in jail who say they know
you & your kin, say it's not your style to work with
police.

Good luck-if all works out as it should with right at my
back-you may be able to talk me into some serious ink work. I
am an artist with my own equipment. Keepin' it real, I
keep it right w/friends old and new.

Heironimus's trial counsel advised him that he faced a
three-year sentence for the attempted obstruction of justice
charge and a four-and-one-half year enhancement for his
habitual offender status. Heironimus agreed to plead guilty
to attempted obstruction of justice, and the State dismissed
the habitual offender allegation. Heironimus agreed to an
advisory sentence of eighteen months, which the trial court
imposed consecutive to his sentence for the robbery and
habitual offender action.

In March 2013, Heironimus filed a petition for
post-conviction relief, which was later amended. Heirominus
alleged that he did not receive effective assistance of trial
counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary, unknowing,
and unintelligent. After a hearing, the post-conviction court
entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon denying
Heironimus's petition.

Mr.
Heironimus appealed, arguing that (1) he was denied effective
assistance of trial counsel or his guilty plea was
involuntary because he was not properly advised regarding the
habitual offender enhancement; and (2) he was denied
effective assistance of trial counsel or his guilty plea was
involuntary because he was not advised regarding an alleged
defense to the charge. Heironimus, 2016 WL 6138958
at *1. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction
and sentence. Id. Mr. Heironimus filed a petition
for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. It was denied on
February 9, 2017.

On
March 28, 2017, Mr. Heironimus filed this petition for a writ
of habeas corpus.

II.
Applicable Law

A
federal court may grant habeas relief only if the petitioner
demonstrates that he is in custody “in violation of the
Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). Mr. Heironimus's petition is
governed by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”);
see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).

The
Supreme Court has described AEDPA as “a formidable
barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims
have been adjudicated in state court” and has
emphasized that courts must not “lightly conclude that
a State's criminal justice system has experienced the
‘extreme malfunction' for which federal habeas
relief is the remedy.” Burt v. Titlow, 134
S.Ct. 10, 16 (2013) (quoting Harrington v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011)); see also Renico v. Lett,
559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (“AEDPA . . . imposes a highly
deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, and
demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of
the doubt.”) (internal quotation marks, citations, and
footnote omitted).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where a
claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court,
habeas relief is available under the deferential AEDPA
standard only if the state court&#39;s determination was (1)
&ldquo;contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States, &rdquo; or (2)
&ldquo;based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.&rdquo; 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2254(d); see Cullen
v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). Thus,
&ldquo;under AEDPA, federal courts do not independently
analyze the petitioner&#39;s claims; federal courts are
limited to reviewing the relevant state court ruling on the
claims.&rdquo; Rever v. Acevedo, 590 F.3d 533, 536
(7th Cir. 2010). &ldquo;A state-court decision involves an
unreasonable application of this Court&#39;s clearly
established precedents if the state court applies this
Court&#39;s precedents to the facts in an objectively
unreasonable manner.&rdquo; Brown v. Payton, 544
U.S. 131, 141 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
&ldquo;Under &sect; 2254(d)(2), a decision involves an
unreasonable determination of the facts if it rests upon
fact-finding that ignores the clear and convincing weight of
the evidence.&rdquo; Goudy v. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.